Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Economically inactive people……

235 replies

Watermelonnice · 02/08/2025 18:23

AIBU to think that the government needs to clarify who they mean when they say that they want to reduce the number of people who are economically inactive?

And to think they need to differentiate between the reasons for economic inactivity, including providing numbers who fall into each category.

It’s lazy to make this a headline without taking into account the different reasons and specifying who they mean.

Presumably they mean people who are unemployed, but economically inactive could include students, carers, disabled people, stay at home parents and those who have retired early.

Some will be reliant on the state for support but many will be completely self reliant and not claiming a thing from the government.

Why aren’t the government clearer on who they mean? Do they think they’ll persuade people who have retired early and others who have enough income without claiming any benefits to restart work?

OP posts:
caringcarer · 03/08/2025 01:01

Yes, DH and I retired early and claim our private pensions but also have a property portfolio which we pay tax on. Government can't make us go back to work.

Almostwelsh · 03/08/2025 00:58

I've got a NEET here at home. Fully funded by me, not on benefits. Can't find any job, noone wants to employ a teen without experience, so idk who will employ someone ill or disabled either.

MinevaZabi · 03/08/2025 00:57

AlertEagle · 03/08/2025 00:49

There are a lot of people claiming they have mental health issues and cannot work.

I encourage you to go and volunteer with those people they aren't as numerous as you think. I used to hold that prejudice because my son is autistic and works until I volunteered at a local charity and realised that the myth of the latest iphone and brand new car simply isn't true.

spoonbillstretford · 03/08/2025 00:56

I agree. You are not going to get people who have retired early by choice back into the workforce if they don't want to be.

TeenLifeMum · 03/08/2025 00:53

I think we all know who they mean but saying “lazy chavs” is not politically correct.

Silverysnake · 03/08/2025 00:53

I dream of being economically inactive. Having enough money not to work but not old enough to retire.

WeylandYutani · 03/08/2025 00:52

AlertEagle · 03/08/2025 00:49

There are a lot of people claiming they have mental health issues and cannot work.

No they have been assessed as having limited capability to work.

AlertEagle · 03/08/2025 00:49

There are a lot of people claiming they have mental health issues and cannot work.

MinevaZabi · 03/08/2025 00:45

NaicePeachJoker · 03/08/2025 00:29

Because you’re not providing goods or services. You’re taking money without providing good or services and giving it to others in exchange for goods and services. You are participating in the economy, but only in terms of consuming not contributing. It’s just economic terms, nothing to do with you personally.

That's the technical definition of economic inactivity you're totally correct.

But the movement of money regardless of its source definitely contributes to a countries economy.

The term economically inactive is simply unhelpful and bunches together a large number of people with very different circumstances for political or media point scoring. There's a huge difference between a disabled person,drug dealer and someone rich enough not to work who would all fall under that umbrella term from the governments point of view.

WeylandYutani · 03/08/2025 00:38

NaicePeachJoker · 03/08/2025 00:29

Because you’re not providing goods or services. You’re taking money without providing good or services and giving it to others in exchange for goods and services. You are participating in the economy, but only in terms of consuming not contributing. It’s just economic terms, nothing to do with you personally.

I get what you mean but it just sounds horrible

beAsensible1 · 03/08/2025 00:31

The should just say they want income tax receipts. That’s all it’s about.

Ihad2Strokes · 03/08/2025 00:30

mumda · 02/08/2025 19:41

The welfare state was created based on the findings of the Beveridge report of 1942 which identified the '5 giant evils' in society (Squalor, ignorance, want, idleness and disease

Idleness has to end.
Everyone can do something.

No they can't. Not everyone. I had a stroke in January. I can't currently work (not claiming benefits, living off savings) I can barely get through the fucking day some days. Today for example I have barely been able to cross the hallway to get to the toilet, I have spent the day feeling like I am going throw up, intense nerve pain from toes to top of my head & I now can't sleep but I'm thoroughly exhausted.

what the actual fuck do you think I could do??

and I am FAR from the 'worst off' of people with ill health or disabilities.

NaicePeachJoker · 03/08/2025 00:29

WeylandYutani · 03/08/2025 00:11

I use small businesses. How is that not contributing to the economy?

Because you’re not providing goods or services. You’re taking money without providing good or services and giving it to others in exchange for goods and services. You are participating in the economy, but only in terms of consuming not contributing. It’s just economic terms, nothing to do with you personally.

MinevaZabi · 03/08/2025 00:16

Fluffyowl00 · 03/08/2025 00:03

It’s just so simple. There are so many people who could work a 20 hour week who for whatever reason can’t work a 40 hour week (plus 1.5 hours a day commute). Tackle that. Anyone who lives within a 3 mile radius who meets essential criteria for a public sector job is guaranteed an interview.

Workplaces with over 200 staff most have at least 10% of jobs offered as part time.

Simple Keysian economics. The government creates simple jobs (support workers, bank school staff, farm works/fruit pickers, more PCSOs, supplying work to 15-18 year olds) and pays them fairly avoiding the drain of agencies).

They are just regurgitating the same old. So disappointing.

I wish it was that simple. The government wouldn't dare spend the massive amount of money it would cost to create those jobs.

That's before we address moving people on mass to where those jobs are and provide housing. Which would never get support when people object to essential infrastructure being built because it ruins their "views".

Maray1967 · 03/08/2025 00:15

bindin · 02/08/2025 18:59

Do they think they’ll persuade people who have retired early and others who have enough income without claiming any benefits to restart work?

I pretty sure the ones who retired early are from lower incomes but it's due to ill health.

I’ve retired early - professional role. Mortgage paid off, no need for me to work at all. I’m not the only one who has taken early retirement not on health grounds, but because we’ve amassed enough pension, have high earning spouses and do not need to work.

WeylandYutani · 03/08/2025 00:11

NaicePeachJoker · 03/08/2025 00:08

We can’t really go round in circles, if you’re not contributing to the producing of goods or services in exchange for money then you’re not contributing to the economy. It’s not based on feelings.

I use small businesses. How is that not contributing to the economy?

NaicePeachJoker · 03/08/2025 00:08

WeylandYutani · 03/08/2025 00:05

yes and i contribute by my spending. I spend in small businesses and that helps to keep them going.
we could go round in circles on this

We can’t really go round in circles, if you’re not contributing to the producing of goods or services in exchange for money then you’re not contributing to the economy. It’s not based on feelings.

WeylandYutani · 03/08/2025 00:05

NaicePeachJoker · 03/08/2025 00:04

Were we not discussing the economy?

yes and i contribute by my spending. I spend in small businesses and that helps to keep them going.
we could go round in circles on this

NaicePeachJoker · 03/08/2025 00:04

WeylandYutani · 03/08/2025 00:00

then that is a really sad way to look at people. We are so much more then economical units.

Were we not discussing the economy?

Fluffyowl00 · 03/08/2025 00:03

It’s just so simple. There are so many people who could work a 20 hour week who for whatever reason can’t work a 40 hour week (plus 1.5 hours a day commute). Tackle that. Anyone who lives within a 3 mile radius who meets essential criteria for a public sector job is guaranteed an interview.

Workplaces with over 200 staff most have at least 10% of jobs offered as part time.

Simple Keysian economics. The government creates simple jobs (support workers, bank school staff, farm works/fruit pickers, more PCSOs, supplying work to 15-18 year olds) and pays them fairly avoiding the drain of agencies).

They are just regurgitating the same old. So disappointing.

WeylandYutani · 03/08/2025 00:00

NaicePeachJoker · 02/08/2025 23:58

Because the economy is based on providing goods and services, money is just the medium. If you’re receiving money but not providing goods or services then you’re not contributing to the economy.

then that is a really sad way to look at people. We are so much more then economical units.

NaicePeachJoker · 02/08/2025 23:58

WeylandYutani · 02/08/2025 23:38

Both people on benefits and public sector employees get money form the government.
People demonise those on benefits because they are seen to be getting "free" money.
It seems like you are only allowed money if you earn it.
In terms of spending in the economy it does not matter where that money came from. It al trickles up and down and helps us all.

Because the economy is based on providing goods and services, money is just the medium. If you’re receiving money but not providing goods or services then you’re not contributing to the economy.

Justchilling07 · 02/08/2025 23:45

MickGeorge22 · 02/08/2025 22:10

You'll be paying barely any council tax if on UC ?

And you know this for a fact do you.
That’s not the case at all, people claim UC when working part time and they actually do pay their council tax.

WeylandYutani · 02/08/2025 23:38

NaicePeachJoker · 02/08/2025 23:35

So it boils down to people earning their money. Which is divisive.

How on earth is that divisive?

Both people on benefits and public sector employees get money form the government.
People demonise those on benefits because they are seen to be getting "free" money.
It seems like you are only allowed money if you earn it.
In terms of spending in the economy it does not matter where that money came from. It al trickles up and down and helps us all.

ThisTicklishFatball · 02/08/2025 23:38

Doitrightnow · 02/08/2025 22:49

I'm in that group because I'm a sahm to a preschooler. Nothing could persuade me to go back to work and miss this precious time as long as we can afford it.

I also resent the implication that economically inactive people are idle - most I know work very hard looking after children (or grandchildren), the elderly, the disabled, volunteering etc. It's valuable work, just unpaid. If I went back to work I'd be paying virtually my entire salary for childcare. Why would I do that instead of doing the childcare myself? It's not like my job before was super useful to society, like teacher or doctor. It was a boring and often pointless desk job.

If I had enough money to retire I'd certainly retire early too! I can't imagine many people wouldn't?!

You're right.

@HostaCentral , @fizzypop100 , @ItIsFoggy , @SkeletonBatsflyatnight

Others in similar situations have my full support, even if it's just for a brief moment of shared approval, naturally.

Swipe left for the next trending thread